Impeach Trump?

[dvdjs]

Then just list every reason you disapprove of him. The title of the thread is Impeach Trump?.

I have checked my posts. Consistent with my recollections, I did not find a single one calling for Trump’s impeachment.

I am intrigued that you make such an odd request that I post every reason that I have for disapproving of Trump. Why do you want this list?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Most people calling for impeachment don’t even know what the word means.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I have checked my posts. Consistent with my recollections, I did not find a single one calling for Trump’s impeachment.

I am intrigued that you make such an odd request that I post every reason that I have for disapproving of Trump. Why do you want this list?

it is not really odd. there has to be a reason you are hoping something scandalous will be found in these investigations with any of the Trump
family members.

 

[EasterJoy]

it is not really odd. there has to be a reason you are hoping something scandalous will be found in these investigations with any of the Trump
family members.

There are people who are ardently hoping something is found because they believe so thoroughly that wrong-doing has been committed.

Understandable, but at this point I’d say that falls into rash judgment.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Then just list every reason you disapprove of him. The title of the thread is Impeach Trump?.

I will give some reasons why I disapprove of Trump.

1. No leadership on the repeal of Obamacare. He made a promise that he couldn’t deliver on.
2. Incompetence in some of his appointments. Mooch was incompetent, but amusing while he lasted.
3. Dishonest. He said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Still waiting for the check.
4. Does not believe in markets. Free trade between two countries benefits both countries, otherwise they wouldn’t trade.

Are these enough?

 

[randomuser]

it is not really odd. there has to be a reason you are hoping something scandalous will be found in these investigations with any of the Trump
family members.

Same could be said for those apparently obsessed with Hillary, to the point of hawking garbage off Amazon (do they get a share if I buy the book from their link?) Lots of people still looking to find a “there” there…it can’t be healthy to be so preoccupied with Clinton gossip.

 

[dvdjs]

it is not really odd. there has to be a reason you are hoping something scandalous will be found in these investigations with any of the Trump
family members.

Please, you have no capacity whatsoever to speak for my “hopes”.

Here, however, is something for you, from David Brooks. A piece that does resonate with me on the why I view that Trump presidency as likely disastrous for America. Not the Trump obsession/addiction part, which presumes that people are just engaged in the spectacle, rather than watching with a serious concern about the

"… one big question: What lessons are people drawing from this debacle and how will those lessons shape what comes next? …

For a time, we lived off the moral capital of the past. But the election of Trump shows just how desiccated the mainline code has become. A nation guided by that ethic would not have elected a guy who is a daily affront to it, a guy who nakedly loves money, who boasts, who objectifies women, who is incapable of hypocrisy because he acknowledges no standard of propriety other than that which he feels like doing at any given moment.

Donald Trump has smashed through the behavior standards that once governed public life. His election demonstrates that as the unifying glue of the mainline culture receded, the country divided into at least three blocks: white evangelical Protestantism that at least in its public face seems to care more about eros than caritas; secular progressivism that is spiritually formed by feminism, environmentalism and the quest for individual rights; and realist nationalism that gets its manners from reality TV and its spiritual succor from in-group/out-group solidarity.

If Trump falls in disgrace or defeat, and people’s partisan pride is no longer at stake, I hope that even his supporters will have enough moral memory to acknowledge that character really does matter. A guy can promise change, but if he is dishonest, disloyal and selfish, the change he delivers is not going to be effective or good.

But where are people going to go for a new standard of decency? They’re not going to go back to the old WASP ideal. That’s dead. Trump revealed the vacuum, but who is going to fill it and with what?

I could describe a similar vacuum when it comes to domestic policy thinking, to American identity, to America’s role in the world. Trump exposes the void but doesn’t fill it. That’s why the reaction against Trump is now more important than the man himself.

nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/getting-trump-out-of-my-brain.html?_r=0

It is very disturbing to me that too many good Catholics here can see no further than the problems "secular progressivism that is spiritually formed by feminism, environmentalism and the quest for individual rights " and do not see what is so terribly wrong with the ostensible cure that they have adopted supported by “realist nationalism that gets its manners from reality TV and its spiritual succor from in-group/out-group solidarity” caritas-free evangelicals.

It is that barren lack of caritas that makes cure is far worse than the disease.

 

[josie_L]

Same could be said for those apparently obsessed with Hillary, to the point of hawking garbage off Amazon (do they get a share if I buy the book from their link?) Lots of people still looking to find a “there” there…it can’t be healthy to be so preoccupied with Clinton gossip.

Wow, that gossip has some far-reaching consequences:

Federal Judge Orders State Dept To Search Hillary Aides’ Accounts For Benghazi Records

The search for State Department emails regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks received a boost this week when a federal judge ordered the agency to search the government email accounts of several Hillary Clinton aides.

Washington D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, ordered State to search the accounts of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s top aides at the State Department, in response to a lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Mehta said that the State Department did not do enough to search for all emails it has on its computer systems regarding the Benghazi attacks, which left four Americans dead.

The State Department reviewed the 30,000-plus emails that Clinton returned to the agency in Dec. 2014. It has also searched emails that Abedin, Mills and Sullivan sent and received on personal accounts.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as Secretary of State,” Mehta said.

dailycaller.com/2017/08/10/federal-judge-orders-state-dept-to-search-hillary-aides-accounts-for-benghazi-records/

And the judge was an Obama appointee, just so you know.

 

[josie_L]

Please, you have no capacity whatsoever to speak for my “hopes”.

Here, however, is something for you, from David Brooks. A piece that does resonate with me on the why I view that Trump presidency as likely disastrous for America. Not the Trump obsession/addiction part, which presumes that people are just engaged in the spectacle, rather than watching with a serious concern about the

nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/getting-trump-out-of-my-brain.html?_r=0

It is very disturbing to me that too many good Catholics here can see no further than the problems "secular progressivism that is spiritually formed by feminism, environmentalism and the quest for individual rights " and do not see what is so terribly wrong with the ostensible cure that they have adopted supported by “realist nationalism that gets its manners from reality TV and its spiritual succor from in-group/out-group solidarity” caritas-free evangelicals.

It is that barren lack of caritas that makes cure is far worse than the disease.

I love how the NYT, which supports a multitude of progressive issues against those held by the Catholic Church and many other orthodox Christians has a right to moralize and preach, when they themselves are in need of self-reflection and “spiritual” awakening.

Their agenda/POV is neither objective and/or moral.

 

[dvdjs]

Wow, that gossip has some far-reaching consequences

Far reaching? Judicial Watch makes a FOIA request. Judge grants it. This supports EJ’s point more than it undercuts it.

 

[josie_L]

Far reaching? Judicial Watch makes a FOIA request. Judge grants it. This supports EJ’s point more than it undercuts it.

Well, it sure has heck isn’t gossip.

 

[dvdjs]

I love how the NYT, which supports a multitude of progressive issues against those held by the Catholic Church and many other orthodox Christians has a right to moralize and preach, when they themselves are in need of self-reflection and “spiritual” awakening.

Yes, by all means attack the publisher. It underscores Brooks’s point on the succor of group politics why think through the wisdom of Brooks, when you can just attack the publisher? Have you any familiarity with the writings of David Brooks?

 

[dvdjs]

Well, it sure has heck isn’t gossip.

How do you know? FOIA are not granted, like a search warrant, on the merits of the case behind the need for the documents. Rather they are granted as a right to public documents. A gossip motivated request will do just fine.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, by all means attack the publisher. It underscores Brooks’s point on the succor of group politics why think through the wisdom of Brooks, when you can just attack the publisher? Have you any familiarity with the writings of David Brooks?

No, I don’t, but if the NYT wishes to talk about group think it might want to start with the Democratic party and their promulgation of identity politics for starters.

God bless!

p.s. I will read the article though, I owe you that much (out of respect).

 

[dvdjs]

No, I don’t, but if the NYT wishes to talk about group think it might want to start with the Democratic party and their promulgation of identity politics for starters.

God bless!

p.s. I will read the article though, I owe you that much (out of respect).

Did you skip over that point about secular progressives in the article and repeated in my comments? Please do read the article. And I think you would like more of Brooks, such as his book, the road to character, even though he has been writing for the Times.

 

[josie_L]

How do you know? FOIA are not granted, like a search warrant, on the merits of the case behind the need for the documents. Rather they are granted as a right to public documents. A gossip motivated request will do just fine.

Because when taken in tandem with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to reinvestigate Clinton, Comey, Rice, Lynch … . .etc., it kind lends itself to the belief that we are dealing with more than just mere gossip.

And the fact that Judicial watch was being stonewalled from getting those emails, just like other activist groups were stonewalled for almost a year before they received information concerning the Tarmac meeting, makes things that more suspicious.

Calling everything gossip just because it does not fit your narrative, is no reason to believe we are dealing with gossip, especially when evidence to the contrary is mounting.

 

[josie_L]

Did you skip over that point about secular progressives in the article and repeated in my comments? Please do read the article. And I think you would like more of Brooks, such as his book, the road to character, even though he has been writing for the Times.

No, I didn’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that the NYT and the Democratic party collude together to push their progressive views.

So I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to anyone writing in the NYT.

p.s. I would appreciate it more if the NYT would write as critically of the Democratic party as they would the Republican party, but they do not, have not, and probably will not.

 

[josie_L]

Did you skip over that point about secular progressives in the article and repeated in my comments? Please do read the article. And I think you would like more of Brooks, such as his book, the road to character, even though he has been writing for the Times.

Ok, dvdjs, I read the article and I have a few thoughts of my own, first, if the man is so gosh darned annoyed about all the space that Trump has taken up in his world, then why write another Trump-driven article, when that just defeats the purpose? Will he no longer be writing about Trump from this point on and/or is the NYT willing to write less about the president, if the circumstances are such that they can?

Moreover, whose to blame for this Trump 24/7 narrative, Trump, no, it’s the media, in fact, wasn’t it a CNN executive who stated that Trump was good for ratings and that the Russia/Trump narrative was a nothing burger?

No one is forcing the media to report every tittle tattle regarding Trump, yet they are quick to do so, because they are angry at Trump (and his supporters) for ruining their presidential dreams of a female president whose agenda ran along the same lines as theirs.

My answer to all this is: GET OVER IT!

 

[josie_L]

Oh, and he’s wrong about the secular progressive agenda pushing individual rights, that would be liberals in the truest sense of the word, and/or libertarians that promulgate this, even some conservatives, but not progressives.

 

[randomuser]

Because when taken in tandem with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to reinvestigate Clinton, Comey, Rice, Lynch … . .etc., it kind lends itself to the belief that we are dealing with more than just mere gossip.

And the fact that Judicial watch was being stonewalled from getting those emails, just like other activist groups were stonewalled for almost a year before they received information concerning the Tarmac meeting, makes things that more suspicious.

Calling everything gossip just because it does not fit your narrative, is no reason to believe we are dealing with gossip, especially when evidence to the contrary is mounting.

It’s gossip. Lots of books to be sold. Lots of WND, NewsMax and Amazon affiliate links to buy more gossip and more garbage about Hillary. Lots of 10-point font posts from said books and fake news stories.

There’s no “there” there. Move on.